Political Development in Croatia 1990-2000: Fast Transition – Postponed Consolidation

Čular, G., Political Development in Croatia ..., Politička misao, Vol. XXXVII, (2000), No. 5, pp. 30–46 30 Izvorni znanstveni članak 32(197.5)“199” Political Development in Croatia 1990-2000: Fast Transition – Postponed Consolidation GORAN ČULAR Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb Summary Regardless of our evaluation of the results and quality of the transition in Cro- atia, it seems justified to take 1995 as the year when the transition was over. Until then the main democratic institutions were formally crafted and established and the new regime was something quite different from the socialist rule. The new regime emerged as the result of institutionalization of the HDZ movement into political regime, with two distinct characteristics: a) in terms of substance, the regime was an authoritarian regime; b) the regime acquired its legitimacy through reasonably free and fair democratic procedures. Such an authoritarian democracy (in contrast to authoritarian dictatorship) precluded democratic consolidation (either in terms of quality or in terms of duration) almost by definition, which can be additionally shown at the constitutional, behavioural and attitudinal level. Never- theless, the January elections opened the space for the Croatian democracy to con- solidate. Whether consolidation will be successfully crafted is still not clear. Introduction Works dealing with political development in Croatia in the last ten years under the theoretical framework of democratization (i.e. democratic transition and consolidation) are rare. This is true for domestic social science as well as for foreign scientists dealing with the case of Croatia (or ex-Yugoslavia), whether as a case study or within cross-national comparative analyses. The reasons for this are primarily in the peculiar processes that took place in the late 80s and at the beginning of the 90s within the then common state of Yugoslavia: the dissolution of the federal state, which happened simultaneously with the demise of the communist regime, and the war between the Yugoslav republics that followed. As a consequence of these facts foreign observers focused on the problems at federal level or on the relations between the republics more than on the inner development in the constituent republics – the level at which transition(s) actually occurred. Also, under the pressure of actual events, the focus shifted to the variables that are “environmental” to the transitional processes or, at best, “preconditions” for transition to democracy. Thus the scientific agenda has been preoccupied with such issues as the breakdown of the federative state, the independence of constituent republics and its consequences, na- Čular, G., Political Development in Croatia ..., Politička misao, Vol. XXXVII, (2000), No. 5, pp. 30–46 31 tionalism and national self-determination, war, history, development of ethnic identities, conflict-resolution and peace, the role of the international community, etc. As a consequence, possible explanations inspired by political science have been overwhelmed by other, usually more deterministic approaches, and the transition to democracy itself (and, consequently, consolidation) has been either taken for granted, or put aside, or ex- plicitly denied, but rarely explored.1 Furthermore, scholars who engaged in comparative analyses of democratization found, in the peculiarities of the events in and around Croatia, variables that are not easy to control in comparative empirical research. “Yugoslav exceptionalism” has served not only as a crucial case for the claim that post-communist transitions cannot be compared to the democratic transitions in Southern Europe and Latin America (Bunce, 1995: 987); it has meant exclusion of the former Yugoslav cases from many studies dealing with cases within the universe of post-communist countries, too. (Elster/Offe/Preuss, 1998: 7; Linz/Stepan, 1996: xvii) These scientific reasons, accompanied with the practical effects of the war on the academic enterprise (obstacles to travel, communication, problems of gathering reliable data on the political system of Croatia, etc.) contributed to the fact that the amount of literature on regime transformation in Croatia is not very impres- sive.2 Nevertheless, despite all the limitations, it seems that the concepts of democratic transition and consolidation can be of a valuable interpretative help in addressing the problem of political development in Croatia in the last ten years. In this paper I adhere to the approach that views both concepts in accordance to their “minimalist” definitions. Firstly, both transition and consolidation refer exclusively to the level of political processes, institutions and actors i.e. to what is used to be called the political order. What- ever crucial role changes in the economic, social or cultural sphere could play in transition, they should be considered as variables with the outside effects on transition. Sec- ondly, transition is considered over when basic democratic institutions and procedures are irreversibly settled down, regardless on stability and quality of their functioning. Achievement of quality and stability is a task of consolidation which is, though can be entailed in the very transitional processes, theoretically distinct, structurally different and, in principle, subsequent process. Many authors powerfully showed advantages of such an approach to the problems of democratic transition and consolidation (Przewor- ski, 1986; Di Palma 1990; O`Donnell 1992; Valenzuela, 1992; Gunther/Diamandouros /Puhle, 1995; Linz/Stepan 1996). 1 There are, however, a few exceptions. Mirjana Kasapović (1996, 153-178) is the author who uses transitological categories in analyzing political processes in Croatia in the past decade in the strictest way. For other authors see also Pusić, 1999, Grdešić, 1997, and Kasapović/Zakošek, 1997. 2 I do not take into account the studies which just pretend to talk about Croatian or ex-Yugoslav transition(s) by including the terms like transition, transformation or democratization in their titles, but actually use them as temporal denotation and by no means as a conceptual scheme. This is not uncommon phenomenon, since the very terms gained, among social scientists, much more popularity than the more or less strict methods, concepts and theories hidden behind them. Čular, G., Political Development in Croatia ..., Politička misao, Vol. XXXVII, (2000), No. 5, pp. 30–46 32 The Missed Opportunity of Transition The Croatian transition from authoritarian rule was a rather clear case of transformation in Huntington's terms (Huntington, 1991, 109-142). From the beginning of the lib- eralization of the communist regime to the first democratic elections the whole process was marked by a decisive role of only one player – the Croatian Communist Party. However, the party was everything but coherent. Decisive transitional battles took place just behind the doors of the party Central Committee. The reformist line within the party only gradually succeeded in neutralizing party hard-liners, which enabled them to take decisive steps toward democratization. There is no doubt that pressures coming from the media, intellectuals and public opinion and later actions of organized opposition parties provided precious support, and often political guidelines, to the reformists during the whole period, but these segments of society were not strong enough to create the need for negotiations between reformists and the opposition. Also, except one public petition organized by the opposition, the masses did not actively and extensively participate in politics in the period prior to the first elections, and violence was virtually unknown. A decisive pressure for change came from the growing conflict at the level of the federal Communist Party and between the Yugoslav republics. Without initiatives and real power to efficiently oppose the galloping nationalistic and antidemocratic mass movement that had been spreading from Serbia since 1987 (endangering democratization processes in other Yugoslav republics), the decision of the SKH-SDP in December 1989 about the holding of multiparty elections was, for the Croatian communist reformers, an exit from a nasty situation rather than a preferred democratic solution. Their rather sudden decision had several functions. Firstly, the call for multiparty elections for the Parliament of the Republic Croatia was itself a powerful message to all other republics' leaderships (particularly to Serbian communists) as well as to their own hard-liners about desired direction of the political changes in Yugoslavia. Therefore it is not strange that the very decision was made and announced immediately prior to the 14th congress of the League of the Communists of Yugoslavia held in January 1990, the final step in the dissolution of the unified Yugoslav communist organization. Secondly, with such a sudden step, Croatian reformists wanted to seize the still weakly organized domestic party scene and to improve their chances for electoral victory. By winning the election they would, thirdly, acquire much needed democratic legitimacy that, in turn, would enable them to play a greater role in the resolution of the Yugoslav conflict. For these reasons, the communist reformers, confident of their own electoral victory, did not take into consideration any possible negotiations with the opposition on such issues as securing transitional pace, the constitutional form of the new democracy or even the type

Load more